[jewel]

I'd love to have something like Netflix but with every movie ever. I'd even be willing to pay a reasonable fee per movie to stream them. I have hope that companies with a business model like VidAngel could legally provide that.

VidAngel is a family-friendly video streaming company that filters movies as they stream. While filtering may not be something that you're interested in personally, what I'd like to draw your attention to is their business model. They sell the movie to the viewer for $20, and then the viewer has the option to sell it back for $19 (SD) or $18 (HD) within 24 hours.

I have no idea if this is legal or if they are just under the radar, but so far VidAngel has a wide selection of new releases with a price point that feels reasonable to me personally.

[dragandj]

Currently, only torrents seem to offer this. On the technical side. I won't argue about the legal side, which might be different in different parts of the world.

If people weren't so moralizing, maybe the movie mafia would listen to the users a bit more.

[m_t]

The technical side of torrents is lacking in this case, as a lot of rare, old, or more unheard of movies have no seed at all.

This is the main problem that you'll get with torrent if your goal is to have access to "every movie ever".

[licebmi_at]

karagarga is great in that regard. I have a netflix account and also hulu for a while, but torrents are truly the best of all.

[comex]

In 2011 a company called Zediva tried something similar, though without the "sell back" or filtering bits. They were successfully sued into oblivion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Entertainment_Inc....

[jsmthrowaway]

https://www.vidangel.com/legal/terms

> VidAngel provides a service that allows its Users to buy or sell physical media, such as DVD and Blu-ray discs. While a User owns any physical media purchased from VidAngel, VidAngel will provide streaming services to permit the User to stream the Video Content associated with that physical media as many times as desired. [...] Using the VidAngel Services, a User may purchase physical media from VidAngel, whom then stores the physical media in VidAngel’s physical media vault. [...] VidAngel also provides shipping and handling service that allows any User to direct VidAngel to ship, to an address identified by the User, any physical media the User owns which is stored in VidAngel’s physical media storage vault. A reasonable shipping and handling fee applies. The amount of the shipping and handling fee, which is generally dependent on shipping location, time, and other shipping and handling circumstances, is disclosed to a User when the User requests the shipping.

You are buying a physical copy which they keep, or so they say. It is almost certainly questionably legal, because the license you receive from the film distributor when you purchase a physical copy does not permit you to stream the work, nor does VidAngel's license permit digitizing the work and streaming it out to you simply because you "own" another copy.

There's no army of contractors running around inserting your disc in racks upon racks of Blu-Ray players. They digitized and are serving a film from some other copy. That requires special licensing which their pricing scheme does not circumvent, nor the "ownership" (which is flirting with fraud, by my read).

Modifying the content with filters, especially user-selected ones, is even worse. Just doing that for broadcast requires special care. I know because I used to edit films for OTA broadcast, and observed the legal side that went into crossing every T. It took months before I was even allowed to load up a film in an editor, because merely importing the content into Avid entails a licensed usage. Film copyright is serious.

I don't care how many lawyers vetted this, it will not stand up under scrutiny (and, importantly, I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with that). What concerns me more about VidAngel, though, is their mixed messaging and shadiness. On their about page, they say:

> That’s why VidAngel does not claim to be a moral authority. We will never tell you what to watch or what filters to use. You have the choice to watch however the BLEEP you want.

Sounds great. But then, one reads this:

> As VidAngel has grown and reached a broader audience, a few new customers have begun asking if they can stream on VidAngel without filters. [...] The short answer is, unfortunately, NO.

> There are a lot of great streaming websites for unfiltered movies like Amazon, Google Play, and Vudu. Use those sites for watching movies as-is, and use VidAngel for any movies you choose to filter.

(Note that the second link asks "why are filters required?" and then does not answer the question.)

http://blog.vidangel.com/2016/01/07/vidangel-policy-can-i-wa...

https://vidangel.groovehq.com/knowledge_base/topics/why-are-...

So it sounds like the filtering is important in their interpretation of copyright law (I only say this due to "unfortunately") or they are a moral authority and don't want to admit it to you. Which smells either way. Avoid like the plague and throw a few bucks at someone who flies by day, has a registered DMCA agent, and doesn't employ WHOIS privacy on their domain. What are they hiding? Seriously, if you take money and employ WHOIS privacy, I get immediately suspicious.

They're based out of Provo and only reveal that on their Privacy page (legally-required, I'm sure). I can safely predict exactly what is going on based on their being based in Utah and that the owner went to BYU, which is why it's funny that they try so hard to convince you that they're not a moral authority but then don't let you watch uncut content at all, then tell you that you're getting a choice. Quite the spin.

[theWheez]

I'm an employee at VidAngel so I may be able to provide some insight (although my opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer and should not be taken as such).

When VidAngel says that it does not claim to be a moral authority, it is separating itself from the competition (e.g. ClearPlay). It is not going to tell its customers that x is inappropriate or that it is appropriate to view y. All it is saying is that it is up to the customer to decide their moral standing and what they would and would not like to view. We simply tag the content, they decide what they would like to view in their home.

VidAngel is, at its core, a filtering company. So if you are not filtering, VidAngel give you alternatives such as Amazon and Google Play. That does not conflict with its refusal to be a moral authority. It offers the service to filter movies and TV shows in the privacy of your own home, but what you choose to filter is not up to VidAngel.

VidAngel is a filtering company and doesn't offer unfiltered movies--because that is not the market it is after. Within that filtering, VidAngel offers no opinion on which filter is 'morally correct' or not.

As far as 'shadiness' goes, VidAngel definitely doesn't try to hide what it is doing. You can contact VidAngel at [e-mail] if you have questions.

[DaveMebs]

The legal terms state "A User owning physical media must use VidAngel’s filtering service to permit the streaming of Filtered Video Content to the User’s device."

Section 5.2 at https://www.vidangel.com/legal/terms

This sure makes it sound like filtering is believed to be required to make the movie legal to stream.

I really struggle to believe VidAngel would build a feature to turn away customers because it is not their market focus. It just doesn't make sense as an engineering investment decision - it is easier and more profitable to allow any number of filters (with 0 being a valid number).

[jsmthrowaway]

Hey, thanks for showing up and answering some questions. Can you address my point about which copy VidAngel is streaming? If I purchase a film from VidAngel, are they digitizing 'my' copy and transmitting it to me or are they transmitting a master copy of some kind with my filtering directions?

We kinda left that one hanging and now I'm curious. And it's the crux.

[thomas4019]

My guess is there's some provision in the "Family Entertainment and Copyright Act" that they think makes this streaming legal. The text clearly makes the displaying an edited version legal and does talk about transmitted works. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110.

The key point is in (11). the following are not infringements of copyright: "the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture"

[jsmthrowaway]

The "authorized copy" being the important part, unless you're clicking "buy" and then getting an e-mail the next day when your copy of the film, as digitized at your direction, is ready to stream. Which would make it pointless, so I'm almost positive they don't do that, and even if they did there is no streaming license of any kind in the whole scenario, so...

Good position to be in for them, though, because any type of enforcement will (a) rally a large portion of the community that company represents and (b) start a copyright-vs-family or copyright-vs-church or government-vs-church war, which will be a fountain of bad PR for all involved. (Not that MPAA cares.)

[civilian]

You can select a filter like "ending credits". Then you can watch a filtered movie that is essentially unfiltered.

[cpeterso]

CLEANFLIX is a documentary (available on Netflix :) about CleanFlicks, a similar editing service (though they sold physical DVDs of the edited films) that was sued by Hollywood.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1007026/

[djloche]

Guessing: Their justification is: You're not streaming 'Batman', you're streaming, 'JoeBob's Batman Personal Fair Use Derivative Version'.

Whether that would stand up in court, might depend on jurisdiction, judge, jury, etc.

[vacri]

>if you take money and employ WHOIS privacy

I have my contact details on the company domain. I'm considering enabling the WHOIS privacy simply to get rid of the endless succession of people trying to sell me domains that are one character off.

[forrestthewoods]

iTunes has almost every movie ever. It costs between $4 and $6 to rent. That's sounds pretty reasonable to me.

[mixmastamyk]

Nope, most are only avail to buy as I was reminded when looking for star wars with my daughter, no way I'm paying $20 to see a forty year old movie.

[forrestthewoods]

iTunes has most movies and most of those movies are available to rent. New releases usually start as purchase only and become available for rent after a month or two. Star Wars is a special case and is not representative of "most".

[mixmastamyk]

That was just my last try, I've found more than half the time I want to see something it is buy only or not there, quite disappointing.

[theWheez]

Try VidAngel.com, $1 per movie after an initial $20 purchase

[cr1895]

>I'm an employee at VidAngel

[alexashka]

So only those who have money should be able to enjoy Indiana Jones?

Your worldview makes total sense...

Thankfully, nobody sane agrees with you. Even Apple doesn't agree with you - its success of the iPod and iPhone is predicated upon pirated music and free access to information (the internet)

[scott_s]

I make per-movie purchases digitally through Amazon's streaming service. I have been happy with it. (This is in support of your comment, to say there are services close to what was requested. I'm not trying to say iTunes is bad; it just doesn't work for me, as my "media box" is a PS4 hooked up to my tv.)